Opponents of the Authorised Version (KJV) have rejected this accurate and faithful translation of the Word of God in the English language on the basis of the old English and the Greek Textus Receptus (TR) from which the New Testament of the KJV was translated. The same people claim that the old English of the KJV is outdated and difficult for modern English speakers to understand. They also claim that we have far better manuscripts today than the Reformers had when the TR was published in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. They further claim that scholarship over the last 150 years (they did not mention the scholarship was done by unbelieving liberal scholars using higher criticism) has given us a Modern Critical Text (MCT) that is more accurate than TR. Therefore, the opponents of KJV conclude that the KJV is not suitable for the modern reader and equally unsuitable for evangelisation today.
What is the solution then? The opponents of KJV insist that we must use the ESV, NIV, and other modern English versions that were translated from the MCT. However, the MCT is in reality, not a representative of the Word of God but a false Arian ever-changing and uncertain text. Therefore, all versions translated from the MCT, including the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB are false bibles.
Do you logically expect false bibles to be suitable and more effective for evangelisation? Of course not. The false bibles have verses missing and contain footnotes and statements casting doubt on parts of the Bible.
If we hand out booklets of the NIV Gospel of St. Mark as the church I am currently attending do during outreach, what would the unbeliever think when he sees the following statement after Mark 16:8:
The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.
What message are we sending? Parts of the Bible in your Bible is not the Word of God? We are not sure if these 12 verses are Scripture?
These footnotes are not limited to NIV nor these 12 verses. You will see the following statement after John 7:52 in the ESV, casting doubt on the Pericope Adultarae:
The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53–8:11.
When you read about the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts Chapter 8 in the CSB, you would realise that verse 36 is followed immediately by verse 38 with a footnote:
Some mss include v. 37: Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
There are more examples that are not listed in this article. The reason the false bibles contain those statements and have missing verses is because of the differences between the MCT and the TR. The MCT and the two faulty manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) do not contain words and verses found in the TR.
The TR represents the Traditional Text handed down by Christians from generation to generation, and was the authoritative text accepted by the Reformers and Puritans. On the other hand, the MCT represents a text that has been lost and effectively disappeared for 1,400 years, and that is promoted by unbelieving scholars using methods of higher criticism. Judge for yourself, who and which text would you trust? Do you trust the Traditional Text or a lost false Arian text? Do you trust the Reformers or the unbelieving scholars?
Therefore, it is clear that the false bibles introduce doubts to both believer and unbeliever. Believers are unsure about parts of the Bible themselves. John Piper even claimed that the Pericope Adultarae is not Scriptures. Unfortunately, Piper is not the only pastor doubting the Scriptures, there are discussions whether and how Pericope Adultarae, the traditional conclusion of St. Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-20) and other ‘disputed’ parts of the Bible should be preached.
Meanwhile, when we evangelise, we would normally say ‘Trust the Bible’ but how can the unbeliever trust the Bible when he sees those doubting statements and footnotes? Without doubt, false bibles such as the NIV, ESV, and CSB are themselves an obstacle to evangelisation.
Moreover, the false bibles are ammunition for unbelievers who would seize those doubting statements and footnotes to attack Christians. Should we be surprised? Obviously no. Remember, the MCT from which the false bibles such as the ESV, NIV, CSB, and NASB were translated, is itself the work of unbelieving scholars such as Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Aland, and Metzger.
In conclusion, false bibles such as ESV, NIV, CSB, and NASB are very harmful and dangerous to the believer, an obstacle to evangelisation, and ammunition for unbelievers to attack the Christian.